The Magill review which says Amy Wallace, "...skillfully weaves vitality and wit into this very
unfortunate story of wasted genius..." shows that
even now the media continue to regurgitate the same old story and fail to see
the truth. WILLIAM WAS NOT DAMAGED. He was a highly evolved and self-motivated
person who made remarkable contributions to society.

According to the book's cover, The Prodigy explodes the myth of William Sidis's failure. However she was reluctant to commit
herself fully to William Sidis as a genius and to recognise his
success. Her greatest failure was her acceptance of unrefuted
newspaper articles with their false allegations.

From the onset she writes of his parents, ''...despite their success in
interesting him in math, the steering may have been responsible for disastrous
consequences that would not manifest for years to come. '' Her implication that
his life was to be blighted by disaster is preposterous. Does she regard the
fact that William chose his own path, while refusing to conform to society's
expectations a disaster? We are led to believe that in a certain sense William
rejected society and went underground, casting doubt over his ability to cope
with life. If only Amy had taken his philosophy into account she would see that
all of this was quite normal.

ONE CANNOT DIVORCE THE MAN FROM HIS PHILOSOPHY. William adopted the teachings
of the Okamakammesset Indian tribe which advocated anonymous contribution to
society while adhering to the concepts of liberty and truth. His path was essentially one of liberty and truth --in order to
follow this he opted out of academia's confines so that he could greatly
contribute to society. He worked at low paid jobs so that he didn't have to get
involved in the hierarchical power games that people play. William Sidis was not
a burnt out prodigy, he was using his own energy for his work.

Wallace claims that Sidis advocated the big bang theory in The Animate and
the Inanimate. In fact he was arguing against this very thing. Her
interpretation distorts his entire contribution to cosmology, which makes me
doubt if she ever read this amazing work.

In the epilogue the reader is further cast into confusion: "The double life
of William Sidis was based on a mixture of righteousness and fear. They failed
to see that their son was indeed afraid." But William was not afraid. In fact he
was a warrior in its truest sense. Fear induces conformity to society's rules
whereas William choose his own path and stood up for what he believed
in.

''Had the adult William been emotionally capable of applying even a portion
of his intelligence to the study of his own psychology how different his life
work might have been.'' Her implication that William was emotionally bereft
lends us to feel that there was something inherently wrong with him. ''The other
factor that damaged William, perhaps the most important of all...'' The list
goes on.

So will the media wake up and smell the coffee beans? The gifts of William's
productive life and his absolute belief in the truth is what is now finally
setting him free. Hello William!